memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Nyria V
Merge suggestion The planet was mentioned, but never identified as Nyria V (although a Nyria III was mentioned). It was simply said that the Nyrian system featured an interstellar cloud " just beyond the fifth planet". -- Capricorn (talk) 14:37, April 14, 2017 (UTC) :I suppose it could have some other name, but at least there's precedent for naming it that based upon the third planet being named Nyria III. It's not like they referred to it as "the fifth planet in a nearby star system". Then, not knowing even what the system name was, you'd have a point. --LauraCC (talk) 16:27, April 19, 2017 (UTC) So we can invent a name as long as it's a likely one? I dunno, it's fact that we weren't told the name of this planet, and to me, that's the end of it. Things would get too arbitrary otherwise. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:26, April 19, 2017 (UTC) :I'm just saying I understand why whoever put it here did. Their thought process. As no name = added to no name page (for now), support. --LauraCC (talk) 19:29, April 19, 2017 (UTC) :: I disagree. We're not inventing a name when there is no conflict in the nomenclature of the system/planet designation. System name: Nyria. Planet III's name: Nytia III. Planet V's name: Dunno. Really? There comes a point where common sense should exist, and far too many times there are those who are too quick to point out something wasn't "said outright", despite being "outright defined." A definition is as good as accurately describing a thing, as if it were outright named. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 14:17, July 17, 2017 (UTC) Putting aside the fact that you're (with all due respect) basically blocking this page from going where we've been agreeing for years these kinds of topics should end up, because of personal preference. There's also the fact that from time to time newbies make pages called planet V or xyz system and we have a helluva lot trouble finding out if it was actually mentioned or not (basically bc it might be from some graphic). That's something we at the very least should be highly transparent with, if something comes from the show or from us. And leaving uncertain things uncertain to me just seems like the cleanest, most responsible way of making sure this kind of "fanon" doesn't seep in. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:05, July 17, 2017 (UTC) :: That's what good background notes are for. They can clarify damn near anything if written well enough. Plus it keeps MA useful and relevant. --Alan (talk) 13:48, October 2, 2018 (UTC) What? I get the impression that you only half read what I said. I was talking about the difficulty of detecting an type of issue sometimes introduced by inexperienced users. You can not count on those people also making clear that they messed up by leaving a damn well written background note on the subject. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:56, October 2, 2018 (UTC)